Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 21PSCV00028, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00028    Hearing Date: July 20, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA OF KEVIN GUAN AKA YU GUAN is DENIED.  

 

Background

 

This is a legal malpractice case. Plaintiff SUNNY LIANG alleges the following against DANNY C. SOONG, ESQ; LAW OFFICE OF DANNY SOONG: On or about April 10, 2018, Plaintiff retained Defendants to represent him in a personal injury action in relation to a 2018 injury. However, Defendants did not timely file suit, barring his claim by the statute of limitations.

 

On January 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit.

 

On March 8, 2021, Defendants filed their answer.

 

On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

 

Discussion

 

Plaintiffs seeks compel the deposition of Yu Guan (nonparty), who is the owner of the warehouse where Plaintiff was injured, because Guan did not appear at his February 16, 2023 deposition. A Certificate of Non-Appearance was taken. (See Evans Decl. paragraph 12, Ex. 5 [dated 2/16/23], p. 32 of 35 of PDF.)[1]

 

However, Plaintiff brings forth the motion upon multiple statutes. (Motion p. 2: 4-5 [“This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1, 2020.010, 2020.020, and 2025.480.”].) However, section 2020.010(a)(1) governs oral depositions, section 1987.1(a)[2] (and Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 123 which Plaintiff cites to) govern production of documents, and section 2025.480(a) similarly governs production of documents, electronically stored information,¿or tangible things under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena.

 

This distinction is also crucial because unlike CCP section 1987.1, CCP section 2025.480 includes a time limit (“[t]his motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition”) and a meet and confer requirement (“[t]his motion . . . shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040”). (CCP § 2025.480(b).)

 

Here, 60 days from the record of deposition is April 17, 2023, making this motion untimely by about two months. Furthermore, there is no meet and confer declaration.

 

Therefore, as the exact statute upon which relief is predicated upon is unclear, the motion is denied.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied.  


[1] A review of the deposition subpoena indicates that it is an oral deposition (Ex. 2).

 

[2] CCP § 1987.1 provides that “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party or a witness] . . . may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.”